Art of Influence

The first painting, of Che Guevara, is a piece done by Gerard Malanga (1968). The second piece was created by Shepard Fairey (2008) (more can be found at flickr).

If you briefly look up, for example on Wikipedia or Google, images such as the above you get similar explanations - that is influencing art and iconic images. What is exactly the rationale for this form of influence; Subjective imagery over objective reality? How is it that those who retain these fanciful ideas for a normative society become such iconic cultural figures?

The intent here is not a direct comparison of character exhibited by these two persons, but rather a comparison of heroic images exhibited by artists who emphasize radical ideology over objective reality and history (that is the history of failed societies based on Marxist philosophy). Certainly the idolation of Obama is premature, to say the least. With that said, do emotional hopes cause some to look past objective reality while hoping for new results from previously failed, fallacious ideas?

Win...Government's....Money!

Mr. Ben Stein has certainly been making his rounds within the news and radio circuit as of late. I must first admit, however, a bit of unfamiliarity toward Mr. Stein's economic proclivities. Therefore, I cannot say as to whether I should be surprised or not to hear that his latest economic speak has been pro Fed monetary pumping - extreme inflationary policy.

Ben Stein feels that the U.S. government finds itself in a situation where the only move to make is to "prime-the-pump". He advocates to start, immediately, without any reserve, printing masses of money before the U.S. economy begins to feel the effects from what he (and others) believes a current period of deflation. What's so bad about deflation, anyway? Mr. Stein additionally claims that we currently have no reason to fear, as a result of monetary pumping, hyperinflation.

Hyperinflation or not, where is the concern for the negative impacts all inflationary measures have on the American citizens (of course this impact has been felt throughout much of the world at one time or another under one leader or another)? We should certainly not want to increase prices - this being an outcome of printing too much money - for those who are already finding it more difficult to get by in hard economic times. Additionally, inflation is the worst kind of tax, and its effects carry with it an unequal impact on the citizenry - hurting those in the lowest income bracket the most, that is those who receive the new money last.

More Broken Windows

More economic plans on the horizon but will the impacts create net benefits?

Aside from the central planning tendencies implicit in the desires of the forthcoming administration, it appears that much of the thought process for their economic recovery has been built upon a fallacy. President-elect Obama's regurgitated notion that government "make-work" programs will steer the economy in the right direction is simply more "broken window fallacy".

In Frederic Bastiat's essay, That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen, written in 1850, he describes the event of a shopkeeper who has his window broken by a little boy. It was perceived by the town people that the boy, as a result of putting a window glazier to work, created a net benefit for the town. The unseen, as Bastiat describes, is the loss of income by the shopkeeper that could have been spent on something else - possible more productive. The town, as a result, did not receive a net benefit from the broken window. Henry Hazlitt also greatly expounded upon this concept in his book, Economics in One Lesson.

The following government economic plan, as part of the American energy resolution scheme, represents a "broken window" fallacy:

“[W]e will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.” (link)

The first problem with this economic plan is that spending more government money cannot possibly save, in net benefits, American taxpayer dollars. If the government would like to help us, those in charge will need to cut total spending and taxes (e.g. corporate tax, income tax, dividend tax) to spur private productivity. It would seem evident that if we reduce the size of government the American taxpayer will spend less in housing those employed by government.

The second problem, and congruent with the first, is the idea that "make-work" programs can spur economic growth. Again, we cannot achieve net benefits as a result of any government reallocation of resources. Increasing employment in one sector of the economy, at the expense of another - possibly more productive sector, is merely a transfer.

Where’s the Precaution?

While I am not necessarily a defender of the precautionary principle, I am discouraged at the disregard for its use in green economic schemes. After a quick Google search of the precautionary principle, the most prominent search results pertain to human activity and environmental health (Wingspread statement being the most dominate search result). The Wingspread statement reads:

While we realize that human activities may involve hazards, people must proceed more carefully than has been the case in recent history. Corporations, government entities, organizations, communities, scientists and other individuals must adopt a precautionary approach to all human endeavors. (link)

Where is the precautionary principle in government’s cap-and-trade schemes? We, at the present, have zero conclusive evidence that mankind is causing global warming (see here and here), but we do have conclusive economic evidence that environmentalist’s policies (i.e. cap-and-trade) will do severe harm to our economy while providing only minuscule, if any, benefits for the planet (see here and here). The decoy has been reveled. Anthropogenic global warming is merely a socialist agenda to take over the economy. Capitalism and freedom of choice are the environmentalist's preventive aim and government control is their principal.

The Perfect Liquidation Analogy; Garage Sales

Looking around my community lately you will easily notice one commonality that is on the rise, garage sales. Church yard sales, neighborhood garage sales, garage sale signs on almost every medium at every intersection; there exist almost a race to pool everyone's junk together and sell to the first bidder. This, of course, represents human action as a strategy to rid ourselves of what we perceive as less valuable property in exchange for something perceived as more valuable (money).

My perception, at the moment, is that while the economy is shaky and experiencing a necessary correction of past malinvestments, much of the consumer fear and uncertainty is a result of the mainstream media's scare tactics and upcoming political uncertainty. Of course, much of the media's dwelling on poor consumer outlook is based on the notion of Keynesian economics - consumer spending lift's us out of economic downturns.

The analogy present is that these neighborhood garage sales represent a liquidation process not much different than that which occurs during a correction period in the business and financial sector. Moreover, the present garage sale scenario is empirical evidence of two economic principals; (1) man's propensity and (2) consumerism does not spur long-term real economic growth.

In order for a liquidation process to be successful there must be a buyer present who is willing to exchange his money for what he perceives as a better deal. This is man's propensity. People are inclined to transfer one commodity for another, as long as there is perceived value on both sides of the exchange. Therefore, the garage sale provides an example of a situation where there are those of whom are still looking to exchange their money for a product and those of whom are in need of liquidating non-productive assets. The problem, however, that presents itself is that the liquidator is looking to rid his unnecessary assets for money and the consumer is looking for a deal on something that he could probable otherwise live without. The aggregate economy, as a result of this exchange, has not been made better off.

What is necessary for the aggregate economy to benefit is real capital accumulation - investment and productivity (shown here).

The overall connection here between the garage sales and liquidation processes undertaking by business ventures and or the financial sector is that investment and productivity are what spur long-term economic growth - capital accumulation. As a result of bust cycles, market corrections are necessary to rid malinvestments that occurred during the boom. Consumer spending does not attribute to long-term growth, which is why government's attempt to increase consumer spending (i.e. economic stimulus packages and public work programs) will fail every time.

Change; Yes we can? More like, probably not.

While there exist better ways, one certain (as now empirically evident) way to fool the masses is to speak in non-specific, subjective language. Now that the election is over and the change mantra has lulled many into a false state of security, let us examine, what should be, the self-evident meaning behind “change”.

Everyone wants change of some sort or to change something, in fact through a reflective process this is typically how each one of us goes about progressing our lives. But the problem here is that the word change has zero intrinsic value; change standing by itself, without a quantifier, cannot be broadly measured -- much like marginal utility. Change is not synonymous with good, nor is it necessarily a pejorative. The word change has zero objective meaning. And, being that objectivity is the true nature of reality should lead one to understand that what we will mostly like get is “change” only in the subjective nature of politics. Thus, only time will provide the objective measure as to whether change has occurred and whether or not it was forward-moving.

Although it is still very early to tell, many of the recent implications and nominations by the Obama transition team appears to be altering the “yes we can” into a probably not. For starters, the nominations for staff and cabinet positions seem to be an attempt to replicate the Clinton years (a la Rahm Emanuel and John Podesta); see here. Secondly, much of Obama’s forthcoming agenda is merely more of the same. The same being that much of his ideas are previous failures; New Deal and Great Society. Lastly, and also inclusive with the second, is the idea that The Great Healer can solve our economic situation. Well, again recent evidence should signal to us all that there will be more of the same. See here.

We cannot possibly correct our economy with a simplistic mention of change here, or a suggestion of change there. What we need is exactly the opposite of this “change”. We need to move back toward economic freedom (this requires going all the way back to Silent Cal and before, aside some exceptions). We need to separate politics from our economy. We need to also come to recognize when we are being fooled by sophistry. If the following is not an indicator that many simply swallowed-up the idea of change (in political party) just for the sake of change, then a better example I cannot provide; “Exit polls showed that 62 percent of the electorate said the economy was the most important issue”. More bailouts, more moral hazard, more economic stimulus packages, more socialization, more subsidies; Yes we can!

Again, while it is too early to measure exactly what we get, the implications of more of the same are what’s on the table. "But once the legislator is elected and freed from his campaign promises, oh, then his language changes! The nation returns to passivity, to inertia, to nothingness, and the legislator takes on the character of omnipotence. His the invention, his the direction, his the impulsion, his the organization. Mankind has nothing to do but to let things be done to it; the hour of despotism has arrived." Frederic Bastiat's, The Law

Globalize and Prosper

The following is an essay I wrote as an entry to a writing contest held by Foundation for Economic Education. While the essay itself may not have been of winning caliber, the content and principals laid out by those before me is of the true importance; Free market economics and free trade.

Globalize and Prosper: Cooperative Exchange, the Occurrence Necessary for the Division of Labor

Expanding the extent of the market gives way to a greater magnitude for occurrence of exchange and thus is the incentive necessary to drive the division of labor. Civilized societies cooperate through specialization which is precisely what Adam Smith had explained as being the “greatest improvement in productive powers of labour”. This improvement, undoubtedly, is attributed to the division of labor; however, it is the cooperation on a large scale that creates increasing productivity as a result from the necessity to exchange. We produce in order to consume.

While we are often inclined to be self-reliant (Ayau, Not a Zero-Sum Game), the incentive to specialize is derived directly from the increasing benefits of cooperative exchange. This incentive we have come to recognize and even welcome as a necessary trade-off in a market economy. In isolation our needs are fulfilled only in limitation to our own abilities whereas in association more needs are met and, in turn creating more products to be simultaneously produced – thus further labor to be divided. This process of exchange and the degree of cooperation is why the effects of the division of labor are only as great as the extent of the market (Smith, The Wealth of Nations).

The Market

A market economy is anywhere and everywhere productive surpluses are brought together for voluntary exchange. It is precisely the market that facilitates a society’s on going cooperation. Additionally, since it is the process of exchange that gives purpose to the division of labor, a market must maintain a significant amount of cooperation to support an increasing level of divided tasks.

There exists little if any incentive for both cooperation and specialization within the smallest of communities as the productive surplus will have a limited value among a smaller, less diverse (taste and demand) population. In order for exchange in the market to occur we must produce a market of differencing goods and services, therefore creating a vast diversity of productive value. This is how the market, through cooperation, serves as the mechanism to induce the desire to specialize (Rothbard, Man, Economy, & State). Small markets yield smaller division of labor potential.

“Producing lots of output is not productive unless it ends up in the hands of those who value it. So the advantage of specialization can be realized only to the degree that people can cooperate, with each specializing in the production of something that others want in order to be able to acquire what he wants from the specialized production of others.” (Lee, Specialization and Wealth).

Through the process of specialized cooperation it is “praxeological”, from the incentives all market actors become responsive to, that we are composed to trade with multiple peoples, societies, etc. in order to meet our own needs and varying levels of satisfaction. Expanding the limitations of the market additionally creates more readily available products than otherwise would have existed in isolation, a result from our desire to improve the processes and products in which we choose to specialize in.

This cooperative exchange is what makes up the market. And while each market maintains its own value of exchange from the number of cooperative entities and available resources, it has become evident, empirically, that combining or thus allowing for market expansion that we will in turn create a far greater abundance of specialization, tasks specialist, and mutual benefits as a derivative from the yielding technological improvements. As the market grows and voluntary exchange ensues, so does the division of labor become progressive, and even in many instances becomes aggressive (“creative destruction”). The division of labor, as Smith explained in The Wealth of Nations, is the prerequisite for innovative methods and technological advancements.

Furthermore, through our ingenuity and improvements in communication we have thus expanded the allowance for cooperative exchange. Therefore, this continuing movement forward in productive ability appears to be inevitable that the international division of labor becomes the end result. “In myriad ways, specialization fosters continuous innovation in time-saving methods and better utilization of resources.” (Ayau, Not a Zero-Sum Game).

Globalization of the Free Market

“Globalization is the process of bringing the entire world into the system of division of labor and thus into the system of social cooperation, of which the division of labor is essence.” (Reisman, Globalization: The Long-Run Big Picture).

Market globalization, in both process and theory, occurs just the same as does any market confined within a single region. Although, a global market sustains a much greater ability to create significant cooperation and wealth as a result of the entire world’s producers and population working in tandem, than compared with such a single region separated from the rest of the world (Reisman, Globalization: The Long-Run Big Picture). For example, within the states of America each state has available their own resources, both naturally occurring and those attributed from the ability of the given population, whether in greater scarcity or relative abundance; however, cooperating as a whole, the U.S. is much more productive and efficient with her resources then if each state was to produce in isolation. The Framers of the Constitution recognized free trade among the states as being a necessary part of our economic system, which is why it was mandated in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution (Batemarco, Why Managed Trade Is Not Free Trade).Through the law of association, all resources within each given region are thus most efficiently allocated and the market as a whole is made that much better off
compared with the alternative, each state cooperating and producing in isolation.

In conjunction with increasing the amount of cooperation within a market economy, international division of labor offers additional compelling motives. A global market decreases the opportunity cost through specialization in productive outputs. Thus, when the opportunity cost is lowered the focus of human efforts and resource allocation is optimized. The cost of production is lowered and the shared benefits are elevated.

Additionally, some production can only efficiently exist in certain regions due to access to naturally available resources, thus further illustrating the benefits made available through comparative costs. The nations who possess a greater abundance of a given resources and can, in turn, produce an output at a lesser comparative costs should be more inclined to do so and trade for other productive outputs that they so desire.

On a global perspective, it is not simply the additional amount of cooperation, although this adds significantly to the level of value-oriented exchange which is a necessity for the division of labor, that yields far greater productivity and incentive but rather the considerable lowering of cost across the board. This lowering of costs is an affect of comparative cost. In a competitive trade environment, each participating nation will find within their best interest to focus their available capital on the production of goods and services in which there are most efficient at - maintain a comparative advantage.

Country A will thus specialize in producing products W and X for which they maintain a comparative advantage in, and Country B will thus specialize in producing Y and Z. These two nations will then trade their available surpluses for one another, all the while doing so in the most cost efficient way possible. The process of comparative advantage is thus increased as a result of a global market – a win-win outcome from international division of labor. Of course, in the real world most nations maintain a varying number of productive sectors in which they maintain a relative comparative cost in, thus, again, a result of allowing specialization to focus capital in new areas of expertise.

As David Ricardo outlined in his explanation for the law of association, the case for international division of labor is made best when nations are allowed to specialize in what they can do best – that is producing products in which their comparative cost is lowest and trading with other nations who maintain a comparative cost in other valuable productive outputs. It is within this movement of the international division of labor that we are all made better off.

Of course, a necessary framework of laws must be present for the division of labor to transform into international cooperation. This framework of laws is the respect for contractual agreements and rights to private property. The respect for contractual agreements and private property is the cornerstone for mutual exchange. Additionally, a currency exchange market is needed to allow for each nation, during trade, to effectively allow for price mechanism to dictate the value of productive outputs. Albeit a bit more complicated than the simplistic mention here, it is important that these factors exists in an international market economy as without them international cooperation would not take place. “The only function of money is, ultimately, to facilitate the division of labor”. (Ayau, Not a Zero-Sum Game).

Government Facilitation of the Market

A global free market is the catalyst for the international division of labor. However, a free market must be free from outside coercion and facilitation. Market actors should be free to cooperate and exchange with others as they see fit; their knowledge to speculate in rapidly changing market environments and the incentives made available as a result of their self-interest serve as their guiding motive. Adam Smith had described this affect as the market’s “invisible hand”.

The unintended consequence from both producers and consumers acting freely in a market economy is that everyone is made better off. This outcome occurs from the motivation to trade. Free trade stimulates competition, lowers prices and efficiently directs the flow of capital resources. Government facilitation of the market, on the other hand almost always results in an unintended consequence of making the majority worse off for the betterment of only a few. The reason being is that government officials are likely to be influenced by special interest groups lobbying for special treatment to help protect their industries. The Smoot-Hawley tariff passed by the U.S. government in 1930 is a primary example of a destructive protectionist policy. The protection, of course is either the complete elimination of foreign competition or the implementation of policies to make competitor cost unattractive to local consumers. The end result being the same; consumers are made worse off and failing industries are artificially kept alive.

Market regulations, tariffs, quotas, and anti-dumping laws all serve one common purpose – to restrict international free trade. National governments, as witnessed even in recent history, tend to prefer to decide which producers and manufactures they should keep operating within their boarders at all cost. To do so, of course, means that these industries must be protected from global competition. Thus, governments cannot facilitate globalization when their policies serve the interest of the protectionist.

These restrictive policies on international trade also result in negative impacts that hamper the local economy. Government involvement in a market economy, as a result from their interventionism, removes the market mechanisms (price) necessary to foster efficient allocation of resources. Thus, governments are inefficient and create waste. Additionally, market economies are primed on the basis of a profit loss system. And since governments do not own the factors of production and capital resources in a free market, when they attempt to take facilitate these processes the outcome is always disastrous. That is, government actors are neither responsive to market signals nor responsible for the costs from their failures.

Conclusion

International division of labor will bring with it the greatest available level of productivity and standard of living; however, this magnificent cooperation will not be possibly without the precondition of economic freedom and the rights to private property. When nations around the globe complete the necessary transition from government control of the market to a laissez faire market approach, only then will we bear witness to the “greatest improvement in productive powers of labour” on a global stage.

Additionally, it is not just the cooperation for exchange but also for production that leads us to globalization. For we must, through the most efficient methods possible, employ all the available resources – man and commodity – for the utmost productive ends. Thus, leading to the wealth of nations, the incentive to produce in quantity for other’s consumption is the quintessential reason we trade. “The main cause of prosperity, Smith argued, was increasing the division of labor” (www.econlib.org). And, only through government facilitation of the market shall the extent of this market be limited, artificially and unnecessarily, from what otherwise will occur under free-market conditions.

Reference

Ayau, M. F. (2007). Not a Zero-Sum Game, The Paradox of Exchange.

Batemarco, R. (1997). Why Managed Trade Is Not Free Trade, The Freeman: Ideas on
Liberty – August 1997, http://www.fee.org/.

Lee, D. R. (1998). Specialization and Wealth, The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty – August
1998, http://www.fee.org/.

Reisman, G. (2006). Globalization: The Long-Run Big Picture, http://www.mises.org/.

Rothbard, M. (1962). Man, Economy, & State, Chapter 3: Exchange and the Division of
Labor, http://www.mises.org/.

Smith, A. (2003). The Wealth of Nations. Biography of Adam Smith (1723-1790). The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, http://www.econlib.org/.

Economic Freedom VS. Protectionism

We often hear that free trade policies bring with it negative consequences for American jobs. In fact, Barrack Obama recently continued the myth that "not all free trade is good trade". And, why not? It is true that in some instances Americans will face increased competition when trade barriers are relaxed, however, the negatives consequences are merely short-term. The long-term benefits outweigh the short-term negative impacts - market specific job losses - by a very wide margin. A prime example is that when the majority of Americans are enabled to purchase products at a much cheaper costs, more of their earnings are available for the purchase of other products and services. Thus, making a win win outcome for the global economy.

Furthermore, Obama declares a presidential platform for enhancing education to compete with global economies. Why do we need to compete globally if, at the same time, their objective is to protect less efficient jobs and continue the misallocation of resources? I do, however, believe that Obama has part of this equation correct; education. We should start right away promoting education in free markets and the principals laid out by the classical economist (i.e. Ricardo and Smith).

Let us not continue the myths and fallacies of protectionism. Let us not continue the misalloaction of resources through government subsidies and job assistance programs that only continue the reduction of economic freedom and make us all worse off. "Trade creates wealth - and trade also conserves scarce resources. The unintended consequences of policies designed to obstruct trade exacerbate the problems they are intended to solve."

We hurt the entire nation when our leaders stifle free trade and competition.

America Cannot Afford Another 1932

I have certainly not had the time to read or follow all commentary surrounding the presidential debates, however, from what I have read and followed I am surprised that I have not seen or heard more concern about the comment made by Senator Joe Biden during the VP debate. Senator Biden, more than once, mentioned that this election will be the most important since 1932. Now why would that be?

This mention by Biden as this year’s election being the most important since 1932 leads me to believe that there are one or two specific tactics in play here – although more likely a combination of the two.

The first of the two tactics in play here is that more government intervention is the answer to a struggling economy. Is Senator Biden suggesting that he and a President Obama will usher in more government programs similar to the FDR era that will “save America”? Programs like Fannie Mae, WPA (Work Projects Administration), Social Security System, and other dependency inducing Welfare programs; does America really need more of this?

Quite the contrary to Senator Biden and Obama’s position, these programs only distort the situation and make matters much worse in the long-run. As a few authors here have explained (Rothbard’s America's Great Depression, Amity Shlaes’ The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, Robert Higgs’ Crisis and Leviathan) that these very “solutions” are only a means to an end that results in greater government control and power. Myth of the Solution

The current economic situation is not too much different. We don’t need government interventionism to solve the supposed free market failures. The free market has not been allowed to fully operate since Cool Cal. The current problems are a result of what Mises referred to as government interventionism leading to still further government interventionism. More government is not the solution; let’s try more free market mechanisms.

The second tactic on display here is one that has been going on for quite some time as well. That is that economic problems are the fault of Republicans, and Democrats are the ones who solve economic failures. While George W. Bush is not escape from some fault in the current economic situation – similar to some of Hoover’s anti-competition policies – much of the blame can be placed on the progressive policies and corrupt behaviors of the Democrats (i.e. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Community Reinvestment Act and it’s revisions in the mid 90’s, corrupt democratic congressional leaders who are in charge of the banking and finance committee, and ACORN).

What we need now is someone with the ability to point out the culprits and their policies which has allowed economic problems such as the current one to happen, and a reform of big government. Again, more government is not a solution it’s the very entity that is the problem. Let us try the free market and allow this prosperity inducing machine to again work for the American people.

We cannot afford more socialization of America!

Why Not an Achievement of Civilization Day?

The following was written earlier this year, however, I decided to attach this as part of my new blog site.

Yet another Earth Day is upon us and it still seems that we are not yet able to fulfill the environmentalist agenda for saving the Earth in Peril. In reality we should see more reason to celebrate man’s creativity and intellectual evolution – that of which is empirically evident – instead of crack-pot schemes as a means for central control.

What is clear about any form of debate that is over is the environmentalist strong desire to curb civilization. Their statement to the world is simple - It’s time to give up and pack it in, mankind’s tireless efforts to make life better for all has been a farce all along, and rather a negative impact on us all.

What are we, as a civilization to, do that will one day benefit ourselves and the Earth? Is this idea even a potential reality or merely Utopian? Well, currently our air is cleaner, bodies of water are cleaner, people are living longer and healthier lives, more people have access to drinkable water and food, and much if not all of these improvements are a direct result of man’s ingenuity and prosperity. This result is not because man is destroying Mother Nature for his own benefit, but rather man is getting better at living – and a pretty good steward of the land when allowed to capitalize on private property.

What’s more, oftentimes those who claim that man is detrimental to the earth hold the view that evolution is the only answer for man’s mere existence. Well, if we were to hold true any claim of that of evolution, it seems the strongest evidence is man’s evolving intellect and abilities. How can these evolving characteristics be wrong if they are what has allowed us to thrive?
Furthermore, if advancing civilization is to be curbed, we most certainly will go back to the time when the environment was in much poorer condition, which stemmed from a poor standard of living – higher concentrations of waste and disease.

My suggestion is for promoting a civilization day or a day to recognize man’s achievement in technology. Why not designate a day each year to recognize that we are where we are today because of advancing human societies – and we are better for it. In the environment of Liberty, Private Property, and Prosperity is where life is well and land and nature are cherished. Besides, when did climate change become a war anyway? The Times describes our current situation as a War on Global Warming. Well, if it were even possible to be truly at war with Mother Nature, I know what weapon I want at my disposal, technology not environmentalism.

What to Choose

Since I am fairly new to the blogesphere, I decided to post here the question I have asked myself and others. Why to even bother? It seems to me that this is why one - me included - would even bother posting their ideas for others to read and, at times, criticize.

When faced with the choice between learning the hard truths of economic thoughts and ideas and fighting for those truths vs. living willfully blind to the realities of liberty and freedom; what do you choose?

How the Progressives Thrive

We are all certainly capable of being in a state of ignorance about one subject or another, at one time or another; however, it seems that the key phrase that separates the willing from those who just "get by" is - willful ignorance. This concept is a bit different and certainly seems more destructive than simply lacking proper knowledge for a given subject, while at the same time containing the desire to educate oneself at least enough to have an idea so as to not be easily fooled. Intellectual humility, or as characterized by Lao Tzu - "To know that you do not know is the best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease" - is a positive character trait. On the other hand, the mindset of an individual who does not take the necessary time to learn important aspects of life will find themselves making statements and agreeing with positions that they themselves really have no common sense in.

These individuals of a society, including myself at one time (although never a proclaimed democrat), appear to be the primary targets for the Democratic Party. Although, it maybe merely correlation and not causation. This concept has inspired me to use the term – demnorance (democrats + ignorance). Demnorants are individuals who have a high level of ignorance - willful ignorance - for the (important) world around them. They are often attracted to progressive positions. The reason, oftentimes, is that these progressive positions attack the hearts of individuals - that is citizens that otherwise maintain no better understanding. Thinking with one's heart in stead of one's brain is unfounded logical. You will find little to no logical reason in the heart, only emotional guidance - thinking with one's heart as opposed to one's mind, one can easily be mislead.

This statement, of course, is not to suggest that people should ignore their own hearts in fear that they will be mislead, but rather measuring what’s found in the heart against logical concepts – outside of love. We all certainly need love, but love is different from emotional, feel good propositions that subject the aggregate to one’s selfish whimsical ways – appealing to pity.
Additionally, not only do demnorants tend to think with their hearts more than their minds, they are also victim to the short-term mind set. Such propositions put forth by the progressives only deal with short-term issues. For example, economic policies that involve big government only seem to be concerned with short-term resolutions while completely ignoring the long-term consequences. Just like the economic positions that were put forth by John Maynard Keynes; progressives (Keynesians) believe that any temporary short fall in the economic cycle can only be solved by government intervention (free healthcare). Demnorants actually, from what I have witnessed, believe that government controlled healthcare will be provided FREE of charge to all of a nation's citizens. First off, as anyone quaintly knowledgeable in economics knows that "there ain't no such thing as free lunch" - someone of willful ignorance would not take the time to gain even an inkling of an understand for what such a concept means. Lastly, only a short-term, demnorant mind set could believe that health care cost could be resolved with government's involvement. Another example is individual savings versus government reliance.

I would, in fact take this one step further to suggest that the media make such doom and gloom statements only to push further the idea - to demnorants, or anyone paying attention - that additional government policies and programs need to be in place, immediately. Central control is the true desire of the progressive party and their ploy is to continue to mislead the demnorants in order to eventually accomplish their goal.

While it seems attractive and "thoughtful" to base rational from the heart, it's better to understand true concepts and causation. Ask a demnorant how they plan to survive during retirement, or for that matter whether or not they even think to plan that far out.

Government Can't Win: Open and Free Competition is the Soltuon

Government cannot win in a competitive environment; government's only method for survival is to eliminate both competition (all free market forces) and any and all incentives for society to become compelled to compete (against one another and against state bureaucracies). Their preemptive tactics are to create - artificially - a need for dependency by the society on the state's illusory benevolence. Altruism over rational self-interest. As Milton Friedman stated; their goal is to transform self-interest an equality of opportunity into equality of outcome and altruism.